*Awaits a response from Alex_Hansons, one or two other pretty much unknown users, perhaps Askbob, and definitely some "Haha I'm trying to be funny but I know deep down I'm not" true2gaga post about being a nazi or something

They're right - I was never conservative. I was authoritarian, but I realized that the ends I wanted to achieve didn't require that kind of government. I shared a lot of goals with libertarians (a merit-based, pyramidal, individualistic society), but I found that my means and intentions were a bit off. So, I switched out.

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.

Well, let me ask it this way: What do corporations stand to gain from buying political influence? How do they benefit?

At 4/4/2010 5:11:05 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:I should become a conservative just for laughs. It would certainly be shocking to alot of people. Well I guess I am quite conservative in alot of ways already, just not economics.

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.

Well, let me ask it this way: What do corporations stand to gain from buying political influence? How do they benefit?

Well they could buy political influence to get politicians to implement policies that directly benefit them. I don't know, but it's a possibility. I just really don't trust large corporations. I am quite pro-small business though.

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.

Well, let me ask it this way: What do corporations stand to gain from buying political influence? How do they benefit?

Well they could buy political influence to get politicians to implement policies that directly benefit them. I don't know, but it's a possibility. I just really don't trust large corporations. I am quite pro-small business though.

Exactly. In a society where the government is directly integrated into the economy, that would be a valid concern; however, in a free market, the government is completely divorced from the economy; that's why it's also called "hands-off" economics.

At the point that the government has no authority over the economy, corporations couldn't benefit from buying off politicians, since no policies would exist to affect the market. There would be no subsidies, no protectionism, and so on.

Cody, the difference is that in order to stop the government from ever having a hand in the economy, or ever being able to benefit corporations, you would essentially need to get rid of the entire concept.

Corporations get into government for a lot more reasons than just direct economic benefits. Corporate influence on government is existent for the fact that a government has a monopoly on violence; that means corporation can play with the courts, with the military, with government-provided services (getting contracts, for instance), with diplomacy and foreign policy, etc. All these things are important to corporations.

The difference, Volkov, is that it becomes obvious to everyone what's going on, since there's no massive amount of perfectly moral "get off my back" lobbying to sift through to get to the corruption. It is a lot easier to deal with things when it is easier to find them.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 4/4/2010 6:06:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:The difference, Volkov, is that it becomes obvious to everyone what's going on, since there's no massive amount of perfectly moral "get off my back" lobbying to sift through to get to the corruption. It is a lot easier to deal with things when it is easier to find them.

I disagree. I think a good amount of lobbying will exist still, plus I thought your system allowed such lobbying despite?

At 4/4/2010 6:06:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:The difference, Volkov, is that it becomes obvious to everyone what's going on, since there's no massive amount of perfectly moral "get off my back" lobbying to sift through to get to the corruption. It is a lot easier to deal with things when it is easier to find them.

I disagree. I think a good amount of lobbying will exist still, plus I thought your system allowed such lobbying despite?

Allow? Yes. Give people a reason to spend resource getting people off their back? No.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.